In a web video interview (transcript) Rob Bradley, Director of International Climate Policy at the World Resources Institute, makes the following observation about the difficulties and challenges around the international climate negotiation process:

Well, some of the problems that occur are down to the sheer complexity of climate change as an issue. It’s too politically charged for the technocrats, but it’s way too technical for the politicians. You know, very often ministers come in and they’re handed, by their subordinates, simply too long and difficult a list of questions to get to grips with. But it’s true that the U.N. as a process offers a lot of challenges of its own and we saw some fairly ugly scenes really towards the end of Copenhagen. It operates by consensus. You’ve got every country in the world in the room and, in principle at least, if one of them disagrees with what’s happening they can block it more or less indefinitely. And so you have groups of countries, in many cases fossil fuel exporters who probably don’t see it in their interest to have a strong deal on climate change, objecting and preventing the process from moving forward. Confusingly, they were sometimes allied with countries like some of the small island states who objected on the grounds that the deal was not nearly ambitious enough and who obviously face an existential threat. But nevertheless, a process in which you’re trying to get all of that group of countries with such an incredibly diverse set of interests to agree on something is a process that is always going to raise problems.

It is worth reflecting on Bradley’s point that odd alliances have developed in the international climate negotiation process between fossil fuel exporting countries (like Saudi Arabia) who are trying to obstruct progress at every point and “small island states who objected on the grounds that the deal was not nearly ambitious enough and who obviously face an existential threat” (like the Maldives, Tuvalu and Kiribati) and to think about the equivalent phenomena here in the United States.

In the United States House of Representatives, when the Waxman-Markey climate legislation came up for a vote there were two distinct groups who voted no – the largest group were members of the Republican party and a handful of Democrats who objected to the bill as either unneeded or too extreme.  The vocal leader of this group was Rep. Joe Barton of Texas.   Barton’s skepticism about climate science and the proposed mechanisms for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is deeply reminiscent of similar sentiments coming from representatives of nations like Saudi Arabia in the international climate negotiating process (this is not just a Western view, an eloquent Lebanese blog has spoken out about Saudi Arabia’s approach to climate).    The other, much smaller, group of members of Congress (about 3  Democrats) who opposed the bill did so because it was not ambitious and aggressive enough. The most vocal of these Members of Congress is Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

The next stop for climate legislation in Washington is the floor of the US Senate.  There is little doubt that the science denying opponents of progress will be led there by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, angry enemy of all climate legislation.  It is not clear if there will be a “left wing” in the Senate – objecting to the legislation because it doesn’t go far enough.  It is notable that some of the most aggressive supporters of climate legislation in the Senate have publicly supported the Kerry-Boxer legislation that most closely parallels the Waxman-Markey bill.  Whether that coalition can support the legislation that may emerge as a result of discussions between Senator Kerry of Massachusetts and Senator Graham of South Carolina remains to be seen.

At the end of the day what really matters is that we take all the action we can to address this most systemic of economic, environmental and public health challenges as quickly as we can.   The debate and process needs to be truly and open and those with concerns about the science should be heard but the denial-for-denials-sake we see coming from Saudi Arabia and Messrs. Barton and Inhofe should not derail progress.  The desire for maximum action from the island nations is, in contrast, a truly admirable impulse and we must rise towards it as much as possible but not curse ourselves just because we can not do all that is needed immediately.

Determined journalist from Renewable Energy World takes the time in a long form NPR/radio style podcast to dig into this important topic.   If you are deeply ideologically committed to either “cap and trade” or to a carbon tax you should not listen to the last 5 or 10 minutes – or maybe you should . . .

Former NY Times Reporter Andrew Revkin – now Senior Fellow at the Pace University Center for Applied Environmental Studies while still writing and moderating the NY Times Dot Earth blog – provides a good overview of how the media has fundamentally under reported the climate story drawing upon this cool diagram.

This is the challenge of addressing such a large and systemic problem – how do we sustain focus, interest and energy around an issue that by definition is global, long term, pervasive and does not have a signal moment of crisis.

As the dust settles after the turbulent outcome of the COP-15 climate summit in Copenhagen a few things are clear:

No one is completely happy with the outcome.  Even President Obama described what he hammered out as being a “first step” and “not enough” to avoid disaster describing the Accord he worked out as the beginning of a process.

The climate change denier community (and people playing that role in the US, Europe, Israel, etc… should be very nervous about the fact they are in close alliance with Saudia Arabia) must be upset at the reaffirmation  that greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced in order to avoid  dangerous global warming – a conclusion that relies upon the mountain of science showing that global warming is very real and very dangerous.

Some leading voices like Joe Romm and commentators share the “glass 2/3′s full” interpretation of the Copenhagen Accord presented by the President and applaud the fact that Accord was worked out by the U.S. and China (with Brazil, India and South Africa) and then embraced by others – seeing it as a good thing for international climate discussions and negotiations to be headed down a new path of bi-lateral discussions between large emitters and among smaller groups of nations and away from the UN structure that has been in place since the 1992 Rio Summit.  Robert Stavins at Harvard University and David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council argue that the UN process can and will continue augmented by these new side negotiations.  (Update 1/7/2010 – Robert Stavins has developed this argument even farther.)

Other important voices like Bill McKibben see this change in the process and nature of climate negotiations as a disaster – part of a complete collapse of political and moral will by a President and Administration that should know better.  A related perspective is the view that the Copenhagen outcome shows that the “the elites are not up to the job of saving the world.” Follow the links in that last piece if you want to see some really terrifying analysis of the world that we are headed to if only current pledges and agreements for emissions reductions are met.

To hear these two different interpretations collide check out McKibben and Doniger on the “On Point” public radio show on December 22, 2009.

And what Andrew Revkin calls the “Copenhagen blame game” is now a full scale global enterprise.  With British Columnist George Monbiot blaming the US (and President Obama) personally, Chinese and British officials savagely attacking each other in the press on the question of China’s role at Copenhagen and officials of the European Union laying blame on the developing nations and the US.

So what do we know and what should we (those of us not playing in the titanic global climate game) do?

The answer for CLF is clear.  We need to continue with our work to make New England, the region in which we work, a replicable model of real and affirmative change for the better.  We need to purge our electricity system of old, high emissions coal fired power plants, we need to fight to make highly efficient use of energy in homes and buildings, we need to ensure that our forests are healthy and do their many jobs, including capturing carbon out of the air, and we need to foster clean effective transit and massive deployment of renewable energy.   Our goals are right out there for all to see as is the way in which you can support our work.

Clearly there is a powerful need for global and national action to protect our climate.   And while those epic struggles play out, and we do what we can to shape the outcome, we must not waver in our resolve to advance a climate protection agenda here in our region, our states and in our communities.  We can argue about how far we have come – but it is very clear that we have far to go.

Well worth a listen.  Sue discusses recent big news about Cape Wind. 

WBZ Radio Logo

Pretty amazing turnout at the American Wind Energy Association Offshore Wind Energy Workshop in Boston.   This is a very big room – and it has a A LOT of people in it.  Apparently pre-registration was over 650 people and more were registering at the door.

One of the two keynote speakers was the Massachusetts Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Ian Bowles (pinch hitting for Governor Deval Patrick who evidently is still “under the weather“) who alluded to the newspaper reports this morning about the announcement to be made today about Cape Wind.

Update: Here is the announcement from the Governor’s office. Read CLF’s statement.

The Boston Common has a long history as a place  where social activism and change can flourish.  It is therefore not surprising that  Massachusetts college based climate activists chose this most historic of public spaces for a “Sleep Out”  since the Common is right in front of the Massachusetts State House and this particular campaign is focused on provoking legislative action in favor of clean energy.

These activists, and prominent guests and supporters like Dr. James Hansen the most prominent climate science in the United States, made the decision to stick out on the Common through the night despite the Boston Police showing up to issue citations for being in the Common after the 11 PM “closure” of the park.

The number of people who are willing to publicly call for civil disobedience of this type is far greater than those willing to undertake it.  The willingness of these activists to take a stand, despite negative consequences, is worth noting.

As a poet of an earlier generation noted “Things fall apart; the centre can not hold” when “The best lack all conviction while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.”  It is always a good sign when the situation goes the other way; when good intentions and goals are found among those who are full of passionate intensity.

A pending bill in the Massachusetts legislature would set up a reasonably good system for facilitating the siting of wind energy facilities in Massachusetts.   Conservation Law Foundation and a group of allies have placed on the public record a letter supporting this bill and responding to issues raised by opponents.   We urge Massachusetts residents to educate themselves on this issue and to make their voices heard.

Anyone who has ever authored anything relating to global warming that was posted on even a moderately popular website knows that this is a topic that brings forth legions of trolls lurking in the tubes of the interwebs in web “comments.”

My recent Boston Globe Op-Ed (which also was posted on this blog) unleashed just such a torrent.

Fortunately, some sanity prevailed in the later comments as a fellow who goes by “freejung” posted some smart responses with links to good resources at the end of the comment string.

He highlights the letter from 18 of the most respected science organizations to the Senate on the subject as well as an interesting list of web resources.

Perhaps the most interesting development in the collapse of climate change denial as socially and intellectually acceptable is the news that Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma appears to stand alone as the last “flat earther”, to use the words of a Washington Post columnist.   That column quotes a number of Inhofe’s colleagues who don’t support particular bills but do believe in the science:

“Eleven academies in industrialized countries say that climate change is real; humans have caused most of the recent warming,” admitted Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). “If fire chiefs of the same reputation told me my house was about to burn down, I’d buy some fire insurance.”

An oil-state senator, David Vitter (R-La), said that he, too, wants to “get us beyond high-carbon fuels” and “focus on conservation, nuclear, natural gas and new technologies like electric cars.” And an industrial-state senator, George Voinovich (R-Ohio), acknowledged that climate change “is a serious and complex issue that deserves our full attention.”